I like Allen for many reasons, but the fact that he has gone on record with his belief that life does not begin at conception is going to be a political liability. Much of the "base" is not going to come out in support of someone whose stated position on abortion is "multiple choice." Didn't Allen say several years ago that life begins a few weeks after conception and that late abortions are wrong but that he would not rule out an early abortion for his daughter should she become pregnant? Many pro-life voters, myself included, cannot support a candidate with this position.
I have three years to work on him! Don't give up on him yet Read this. Give him time!
Allen's belief is that life begins at heartbeat/brainwave (roughly 40 days, I think?) but my impression is he takes this type of cloning/human research stuff seriously. Obviously with his belief on the beginning of life -- which from what I can tell is honest and sincere, something I can respect though I very much disagree -- his calculus may be different from the "I think they're human but they can be destroyed" folks.
I'm trying to piece together his stand on this.
He places himself to the left of Bush's stand. He opposes all cloning, including "therapeutic". He supports extracting stem cells from embryos for research without destroying the embryos. It looks like he supports some sort of research on embryos "left over" from IVF. A Virginia life group says he and Warner both support research that destroys embryos. Also speculation that Allen has been moving rightward on the issue.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-07-25-stem-cells-senate_x.htm
http://www.sundaymorningtalk.com/smt/2005/05/george_allen_ag.html